The problem is that psychological testing is too subjective.
I think this one counts as a stupid idea.
Hell, in that case extend it to all registered voters. They are the nutty professors that got us into this mess in the first place. 
Yeah, I don’t know that I want the government testing to make sure that the candidates for government are qualified.
I can see doing a test and making the results public, letting the voters decide, but giving people in the government the ability to keep others from running from office is a dangerous idea.
The Constitution lays out a very minimal set of requirements to be eligible for POTUS and Congress. Can Congress pass a law to add more requirements? Or would that require an Amendment?
Amendment.
The Constitution is above any law that attempts to override it. (Yeah, I know. Poor phrasing)
That’s why so many 2nd Amendment cases, for example.
Prohibition(18th) required an Amendment to overturn it.(21st)
It absolutely does.
I don’t think it’s a stupid liberal idea…but presumably the gentleman who came up with it is somewhere to the left of Clothahump, so I imagine that counts.
C’hump is so far right that Bricker is to his left!
Rep. Boyle is a Democrat. Close enough.
And it’s a lot closer than any of Clothy’s contributions.
Just look at his last one. College student protesting Trump’s election wanders on freeway,gets hit, blames the school. He claims that’s liberal behavior.
I’ve seen ClothaTrump participate in thread games every once in a blue moon, but aside from that, I’ve never seen him just “shoot the breeze” on these forums. He either exchanges flames with other users, or posts halfassed complaints about liberal boogeymen, real or imagined. He’s just posting by rote, robotic and without soul. It’s like he doesn’t care anymore and just wants to aggravate the Dope one paper cut at a time.
sniff
If Boyle is genuinely proposing that, it’s a stupid idea. Of course, there also exists the possibility that he’s not serious and is just trolling Trump and his Republican colleagues.
The bill doesn’t disqualify nutballs (at least, as the text has been reported). It just requires all candidates to undergo a medical examination and disclose the results (according to Boyle’s official statement). The voters decide if the findings are disqualifying. In other words, it’s constitutional. It will never pass, but I can’t say it’s a stupid idea.
IANAL… But, even though the bill wouldn’t disqualify the nutballs, it does make submitting to the evaluation and releasing the results a condition of being eligible for election. Instead of just, “you have to be 35 and a natural born citizen”, the bill makes it “35, natural born citizen, and you have to take this test and make it public”. Doesn’t that impose a qualification over and above what the Constitution lays out? It doesn’t disqualify you for being a nut, but for refusing to take the test.
It’s kind of a parlor game, since it will, as you say, never pass. And I wonder if the bill is more legislative sarcasm than a real attempt at making a law. But it’s kind of an interesting parlor game.
Requiring candidates to make disclosures while running for public office is generally upheld. Such laws do not disqualify candidates who fail to comply; they impose administrative penalties, or criminal penalties in serious cases. In other words, you can be elected POTUS without complying with any FEC regulations. You just might be convicted of a crime and subject to impeachment. And, of course, the voters are unlikely to elect a candidate who totally ignores federal election law.
State laws may require the equivalent of FEC compliance as a precondition to eligibility for appearing on the ballot, but federal law doesn’t.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.
I’d actually love to see candidates have to submit to a written test. Not one they can take home, but take it like an SAT, under supervision and without their handlers to feed them answers. The test would be on the most relevant science involving contentious political issues, economics, law, and civics.
There wouldn’t be a required score to run for office, all we’d do is just publish the results. I think that would probably be enough. Of course, we can’t have someone like Donna Brazile feeding them the questions beforehand, so we’d use professional test administrators and have very harsh criminal penalties for those seeking to undermine the process.
I agree, but what are we gonna do, jail Russian citizens?
And who writes and proctors the tests? Do we just get a score at the end, or do we get to see all the questions and the candidate’s answers?
Everything. The tests would be written by academics who are evenly Democrats and Republicans. Or even just by academics who are overwhelmingly Democrats. Doesn’t really matter, since the test scores would almost certainly be irrelevant in a general election. It’s the primary process where they would make a difference. “Gee, I was really excited about Senator Smith, but Senator Jones is so much more knowledgeable and they agree on most issues anyway.” The main purpose would be to weed out empty suits with charisma or biography but no brains from the primary process.